Harish Raisinghani vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. Union of India and others, the Court emphasized that an appeal lies under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to the Commissioner (Appeals), who can address both factual and legal issues. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. Since the petitioner remained ex-parte before the Commissioner and raised several questions of fact that could be competently decided by the appellate authority, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Harish Raisinghani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 25, 2017, passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise GST and Central Excise, Raipur. This order imposed a demand of excise duty amounting to ₹3,76,52,332/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable, bad in law, and passed without jurisdiction. The respondent, Union of India, argued that the order was appealable under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The respondent further suggested that the writ petition was filed to avoid mandatory deposit requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unsustainable, bad in law, and passed without jurisdiction, implying a challenge to the merits and legality of the order. The respondent contended that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, renders the writ petition not maintainable. The respondent further argued that the petitioner filed the writ petition to circumvent the mandatory deposit required for preferring an appeal.